Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner | Report on Ministry of Government Relations

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

Ministry of Government Relations

July 5, 2022

Summary:

The Applicant asked for records, parts of which the Ministry of Government

Relations (Government Relations) denied access to pursuant to sections

13(2), 16(1)(d)(i), 17(1)(a), (b) 18(1)(b), 19(1)(b), 22(a), (b), (c) and 29(1)

of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The

Applicant requested a review by the Commissioner. Upon review, the

Commissioner found Government Relations properly applied sections

17(1)(a), (b), 22(a) and 29(1) of FOIP to various portions of the records,

and that it did not properly apply sections 13(2), 16(1)(d)(i), 18(1)(b),

19(1)(b), 22(a), (b), (c), and 29(1) of FOIP to other portions. The

Commissioner also found that some records were not responsive to the

Applicant’s access to information request, and that some information in the

records was personal health information pursuant to The Health Information

Protection Act. The Commissioner recommended Government Relations

continue to withhold or release information from the records accordingly.

I

BACKGROUND

[1]

On April 29, 2021, the Ministry of Government Relations (Government Relations) received

an access to information request from the Applicant for the following:

Emails, correspondence & other communications to/from/received by [name redacted]

(Exec Director, Northern Municipal Services) re Northern Village of Sandy Ban, Jan.

1, 2016 to present.

[2]

On January 18, 2021, Government Relations responded to the Applicant indicating that it

was denying access to records pursuant to sections 13(2), 16(1), 17(1)(a), (b)(ii), (iii),

18(1)(b), 19(1)(b), 22(b), (c) and 29(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act (FOIP).

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

[3]

[4]

On March 8, 2021, the Applicant asked my office to review Government Relations’

decision.

On March 10, 2021, my office notified the Applicant and Government Relations of my

office’s intent to undertake a review of the matter and invited both parties to provide

submissions to my office.

[5]

The Applicant provided their submission on March 3, 2021. Government Relations

provided a copy of the records and part of its submission on December 1, 2021, and the

remainder of its submission on January 7, 2022 and February 7, 2022.

II

RECORDS AT ISSUE

[6]

At issue are 911 pages to which Government Relations has denied access in full or in part.

This is outlined in the Appendix at the end of this Report. The records Government

Relations released to the Applicant, in full, are not outlined in the Appendix as they are not

at issue in this review.

[7]

I note that although Government Relations stated in its response to the Applicant it was

relying on section 17(1)(c) of FOIP to withhold information in some portions of the

records, they did not do so. They also added section 18(1)(d) of FOIP.

III

1.

DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES

Do I have jurisdiction?

[8]

Government Relations is a “government institution” pursuant to section 2(1)(d)(i) of FOIP.

Therefore, I have jurisdiction to conduct this review.

2

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

2.

Did Government Relations properly apply section 17(1)(b) of FOIP?

[9]

Section 17(1)(b) of FOIP provides as follows:

17(1) Subject to subsection (2), a head may refuse to give access to a record that could

reasonably be expected to disclose:

…

(b) consultations or deliberations involving:

(i) officers or employees of a government institution;

(ii) a member of the Executive Council; or

(iii) the staff of a member of the Executive Council;

[10] Section 17(1)(b) of FOIP is a discretionary class-based exemption. It permits refusal of

access in situations where release of a record could reasonably be expected to disclose

consultations or deliberations involving officers or employees of a government institution,

a member of the Executive Council or the staff of a member of the Executive Council

(Guide to FOIP, Chapter 4, “Exemptions from the Right of Access”, updated April 30,

2021 [Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4], p. 131).

[11] The provision is intended to allow persons having the responsibility to make decisions to

freely discuss the issues before them to arrive at well-reasoned decisions. The intent is to

allow such persons to address an issue without fear of being wrong, looking bad, or

appearing foolish if their frank deliberations were to be made public (Guide to FOIP, Ch.

4, p. 131).

[12] The following two-part test can be applied:

1. Does the record contain consultations or deliberations?

2. Do the consultations or deliberations involve officers or employees of a government

institution, a member of the Executive Council, or the staff of a member of the

Executive Council?

(Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, pp. 131-132)

3

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

[13] Government Relations applied section 17(1)(b) of FOIP to portions of records 1, 9, 25, 26,

33, 44, 46, 48, 55-57, 70, 73, 76, 78, 81, 92, 96, 98, 100, 107, 109, 114, 115, 117, 119, 122,

123, 127, 130, 135, 138, 144 to 146, 150, 152, 153, 164 to 166, 172, 175, 178, 186, 187,

191, 192, 194, 200, 205 to 207, 209 to 211, 213, 214, 224 to 227, 229, 235, 245, 247 and

253 (see Appendix).

1. Does the record contain consultations or deliberations?

2. Do the consultations or deliberations involve officers or employees of a

government institution, a member of the Executive Council, or the staff of a

member of the Executive Council?

[14] Government Relations submitted as follows:

In Leo v Global Transportation Hub Authority, Justice Kalmakoff noted the definition

in the IPC Guide to Exemptions and then said, “In my view, this means ‘consultations

or deliberations’ would encompass the communications between the persons listed in

s. 17(1)(b) which take place during, and for the purpose of development of ‘advice,

proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options’.” He also said that

consultations “may include background materials that inform the advisors about

matters relative to which advice is being sought, and deliberations include discussions

by the officers or employees of a government institution of the reasons for or against

an action.”

Accordingly, a consultation and deliberation is not strictly limited to communications

regarding the appropriateness of a particular course of action, or the reasons for or

against it. A consultation may include background materials that provide information

about the matters for which advice is sought. The exemption is not meant to protect

the pure recitation of facts, but there may be facts intertwined with opinion and

background information that, if revealed, would reveal the substance of the

consultation or deliberation.

The Ministry did not apply this exemption to isolated statements of fact; however,

factual information is intertwined with the consultations and/or deliberations and

reasonable separation would not provide a legible record; therefore, we have

concluded the information is not factual and is being withheld in accordance with the

IPC Guide.

[15] From this, it appears Government Relations is stating the records contain both consultations

and deliberations.

4

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

[16] “Consultation” means the action of consulting or taking counsel together, or a deliberation

or conference in which the parties consult and deliberate. A consultation can occur when

the views of one or more officers or employees of a government institution are sought as

to the appropriateness of a particular proposal or suggested action. It can include

consultations about prospective future actions and outcomes in response to a developing

situation. It can also include past courses of action. (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 132).

[17] “Deliberation” means the action of deliberating (to deliberate: to weigh in mind; to consider

carefully with a view to a decision; to think over). It can also include a careful consideration

with a view to a decision, and the consideration and discussions of the reasons for and

against a measure by a number of councillors (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 132).

[18] Government Relations submitted a table of 15 Government Relations employees, including

their titles, involved in the consultations or deliberations. Government Relations added that

some of the consultations or deliberations were with, or considered by, members of

Executive Council, and described the topics of the consultations or deliberations. Rather

than quote all Government Relations’ descriptions, I will quote a sample of them as

follows:

Page 1 [record 1] is a consultation between Ministry employees about the Ministry’s

continued involvement with the Village. The exemption was applied to a consultation

on page 36 between Ministry employees regarding the Village’s landfill.

…

On page 70 [record 26], the exemption was applied to a consultation occurring between

a Ministry employee, the Village, and the Village’s accountant.

…

Pages 141-142 [record 57] is an email from one Ministry employee to another,

deliberating if a future policy needs to be put in place.

…

Page 227 [record 81] is an email between Ministry employees. The exemption was

applied to information that deliberates different options.

…

5

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

Pages 264-266 [record 96] is an email thread between Ministry employees. On page

264, the withheld information captures a consultation around an agreement and what

the agreement will address. On pages 265 and 266 and 269 and 270 and 279, the

exemption was applied to a deliberation regarding a proposal for the payment of

accounting services.

…

On page 340 [record 130], the issue in the briefing note captures a request by the

Minister for specific information relating to the Village’s notice of cancellation. The

information withheld is a deliberation between the Minister and Ministry employees

and is reflected in the form of a briefing note.

…

Page 373 [record 150] is discussion between Ministry employees. The information

withheld captures a deliberation regarding management and administration issues of

the Village and the advice provided by the Ministry employee to the Village.

…

Page 440 [record 175] is a consultation regarding a policy cycle that was drawn to help

with the Village’s financial situation and to aid in a group discussion on the policy

cycle. The consultation is between Ministry employees.

[19] Upon review of the records and the descriptions of the records from the submission of

Government Relations, it appears the records contain consultations and deliberations

involving employees of Government Relations for the purposes of section 17(1)(b) of

FOIP. Some, particularly the portions at records 245 and 247, are consultations that include

the Minister, who is part of Executive Council.

[20] I find, therefore, Government Relations properly applied section 17(1)(b) of FOIP to

records 1, 9, 25, 26, 33, 44, 46, 48, 55-57, 70, 73, 76, 78, 81, 92, 96, 98, 100, 107, 109,

114, 115, 117, 119, 122, 123, 127, 130, 135, 138, 144-146, 150, 152, 153, 164 to 166, 172,

175, 178, 186, 187, 191, 192, 194, 200, 205 to 207, 209 to 211, 213, 214, 224 to 227, 229,

235, 245, 247 and 253. I recommend Government Relations continue to withhold these

portions of the records pursuant to section 17(1)(b) of FOIP.

3.

Did Government Relations properly apply section 17(1)(a) of FOIP?

[21] Section 17(1)(a) of FOIP provides as follows:

6

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

17(1) Subject to subsection (2), a head may refuse to give access to a record that could

reasonably be expected to disclose:

(a) advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options developed by

or for a government institution or a member of the Executive Council;

[22] Section 17(1)(a) of FOIP is a discretionary class-based exemption. It permits refusal of

access in situations where release of a record could reasonably be expected to disclose

advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses, or policy options developed by or for a

government institution or a member of the Executive Council (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p.

123).

[23] The following two-part test can be applied:

1. Does the information qualify as advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses, or

policy options?

2. Was the advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses and/or policy options

developed by or for a government institution or a member of the Executive Council?

(Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, pp. 123-124).

[24] I only need to review Government Relations’ application of section 17(1)(a) of FOIP as it

applied it on records 1, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33 to 36, 55 to 57, 63, 70, 73, 76, 81, 86, 87, 92,

96, 98, 99, 101, 106 to 110, 111, 117, 119, 121 to 123, 127, 132, 133, 135, 137, 138, 150,

144-146, 164, 165, 172, 175, 178, 186, 194, 205 to 207, 210, 213, 214, 227, 245, 247 and

250 (See Appendix).

1. Does the information qualify as advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses,

or policy options?

[25] Government Relations stated the records involved contain advice, proposals,

recommendations, analyses, and policy options. I will define each term in the paragraphs

that follow.

[26] “Advice” is guidance offered by one person to another. It can include the analysis of a

situation or issue that may require action and the presentation of options for future action,

7

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

but not the presentation of facts. Advice encompasses material that permits the drawing of

inferences with respect to a suggested course of action, but which does not itself make a

specific recommendation. It can be an implied recommendation. The “pros and cons” of

various options also qualify as advice. It should not be given a restricted meaning. Rather,

it should be interpreted to include an opinion that involves exercising judgement and skill

in weighing the significance of fact. It includes expert opinion on matters of fact on which

a government institution must decide for future action (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 124).

[27] Advice includes the views or opinions of a public servant as to the range of policy options

to be considered by the decision maker even if they do not include a specific

recommendation on which option to take (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 124).

[28] Advice has a broader meaning than recommendations. The legislative intention was for

advice to have a distinct meaning from recommendations. Otherwise, it would be redundant

(Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 124).

[29] A “recommendation” is a specific piece of advice about what to do, especially when given

officially; it is a suggestion that someone should choose a particular thing or person that

one thinks particularly good or meritorious. Recommendations relate to a suggested course

of action more explicitly and pointedly than “advice”. It can include material that relates to

a suggested course of action that will ultimately be accepted or rejected by the person being

advised. It includes suggestions for a course of action as well as the rationale or substance

for a suggested course of action. A recommendation, whether express or inferable, is still

a recommendation (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 125).

[30] A “proposal” is something offered for consideration or acceptance (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4,

p. 125).

[31] “Analyses” (or analysis) is the detailed examination of the elements or structure of

something; the process of separating something into its constituent elements (Guide to

FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 125).

8

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

[32] “Policy options” are lists of alternative courses of action to be accepted or rejected in

relation to a decision that is to be made. They would include matters such as the public

servant’s identification and consideration of alternative decisions that could be made. In

other words, they constitute an evaluative analysis as opposed to objective information

(Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 125).

[33] Government Relations provided descriptions of the portions of the records where it applied

section 17(1)(a) of FOIP. Rather than quote all Government Relations’ descriptions, I will

quote a sample of them as follows:

Page 55 [record 20] is a conversation between Ministry employees discussing how to

proceed if the Village is unable to fulfill their obligations.

…

Pages 74-78 [record 29] is an email from the Village’s accountant to a Ministry

employee that contains attachments. The attachments to the email include the CRA

account balance and Notice of Assessment details. The exemption was applied to

analysis and advice from the Village’s accountant to the Ministry employee with

respect to the outstanding CRA payments.

…

Page 155 [record 63] contains a recommendation and analysis made by a Ministry of

Environment employee to a Ministry employee.

…

Pages 342-343 [records 132 and 133] discuss the recommendation of a regional

administrator and the possibility that a qualified person may be available. This is a

conversation that is captured in a briefing note to advise the Minister and his Executive

Council of the next steps with the Village.

…

On page 502 [record 205], the exemption was applied to part of a sentence where a

Ministry employee provides an expression of opinion (i.e. advice) regarding the

current situation and what it may imply.

…

On page 891 [record 250], an issue in the briefing note captures a request by the

Minister for specific information relating to the Village’s council concerns. The

information withheld is a deliberation between the Minister and Ministry employees

and is reflected in the form of a briefing note.

9

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

[34] Upon review of the portions of the records outlined in the preceding paragraph, as well as

the remaining portions listed at paragraph [25] of this Report and the descriptions provided

by Government Relations in its submission, I am satisfied the portions withheld constitute

advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses and policy options for the purposes of

section 17(1)(a) of FOIP and meet the first part of the test. I will now consider the second

part of the test.

2. Was the advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses and/or policy options

developed by or for a government institution or a member of the Executive

Council?

[35] “Developed by or for” means the advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses and/or

policy options must have been created either: 1) within the government institution, or 2)

outside the government institution but for the government institution and at its request (for

example, by a service provider or stakeholder) (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 126).

[36] For information to be developed by or for a government institution, the person developing

the information should be an official, officer or employee of the government institution, be

contracted to perform services, be specifically engaged in an advisory role (even if not

paid), or otherwise have a sufficient connection to the government institution (Guide to

FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 127).

[37] To put it another way, in order to be “developed by or for” the government institution, the

advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses and/or policy options should: i) be either

sought, be expected, or be part of the responsibility of the person who prepared the record;

and ii) be prepared for the purpose of doing something, for example, taking an action or

making a decision; and iii) involve or be intended for someone who can take or implement

the action (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 127).

[38] In its submission, Government Relations described each record as being created by

Government Relations officials for other Government Relations officials or for the

Minister. The Minister is part of Cabinet; as Cabinet is part of Executive Council, it is

included in this part of the exemption (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 126).

10

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

[39] From review of the record, such as from reviewing email headers and signatures and the

contents of documents, I can tell the records were developed by Government Relations by

the same employees that Government Relations outlined in its submission. The purpose

was for someone within Government Relations or for the Minister to make a decision on

something. As such, the second part of the test is met.

[40] I find, therefore, Government Relations properly applied section 17(1)(a) of FOIP to

records 1, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33 to 36, 55 to 57, 63, 70, 73, 76, 81, 86, 87, 92, 96, 98, 99,

101, 106 to 110, 111, 117, 119, 121 to 123, 127, 132, 133, 135, 137, 138, 150, 144-146,

164, 165, 172, 175, 178, 186, 194, 205 to 207, 210, 213, 214, 227, 245, 247 and 250 and

recommend Government Relations continue to withhold these portions.

4.

Did Government Relations properly apply section 18(1)(b) of FOIP?

[41] Section 18(1)(b) of FOIP provides as follows:

18(1) A head may refuse to give access to a record that could reasonably be expected

to disclose:

…

(b) financial, commercial, scientific, technical or other information:

(i) in which the Government of Saskatchewan or a government institution has

a proprietary interest or a right of use; and

(ii) that has monetary value or is reasonably likely to have monetary value;

[42] Section 18(1)(b) of FOIP is a discretionary class-based exemption. It permits refusal of

access in situations where release of a record could reasonably be expected to disclose

financial, commercial, scientific, technical or other information which the Government of

Saskatchewan or a government institution has a proprietary interest or a right of use and

which has monetary value or reasonably likely to have monetary value (Guide to FOIP, p.

164).

11

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

[43] The following test can be applied:

1. Does the information contain financial, commercial, scientific, technical or other

information?

2. Does the government institution have a proprietary interest or a right to use it?

3. Does the information have monetary value for the government institution or is it

reasonably likely to?

(Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, pp. 165-166)

[44] Government Relations applied section 18(1)(b) of FOIP to records 8, 12, 49 to 51, 125-

127, 143, 147 to 149, 174 and 208 (see Appendix).

1. Does the information contain financial, commercial, scientific, technical or other

information?

[45] Government Relations stated the portions of the records where it is relying on section

18(1)(b) of FOIP contains financial information.

[46] “Financial information” is information regarding monetary resources, such as financial

capabilities, assets and liabilities, past or present. Common examples are financial

forecasts, investment strategies, budgets, and profit and loss statements. The financial

information must be specific to a particular party (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 164).

[47] The portions of record 8 that have been released to the Applicant indicate they are

Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower) bills and statements. The portions of record

8 that Government Relations has withheld pursuant to section 18(1(b) of FOIP contains

account numbers. This is not financial information, and so does not meet the first part of

the test. I note portions of record 126 also contains account numbers, which is not financial

information. I do not need to consider the second or third parts of the test for record 8 and

the portions of record 126 that contain account numbers.

[48] Government Relations stated that records 49 to 51, 125 to 127, 143, 147 to 149 and 174

(withheld in full) include letters regarding “outstanding debt that the Village [Sandy Bay]

12

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

needs to address”. Records 125 to 127 contain an email and statements regarding debt owed

by Sandy Bay. Record 208 (withheld in full), which Government Relations did not

describe, contains information regarding moneys paid to Sandy Bay. These fit the first part

of the test, so I will now consider the second part of the test for these records.

2. Does the government institution have a proprietary interest or a right to use it?

[49] The Guide to FOIP states “proprietary” means of, relating to, or holding as property.

“Proprietary interest” is the interest held by a property owner together with all appurtenant

rights, such as a stockholder’s right to vote the shares. It signifies simply “interest as an

owner” or “legal right or title” (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 165).

[50] “Owner” means someone who has the right to possess, use, and convey something; a person

in whom one or more interests are vested (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 165).

[51] “Right of use” means a legal, equitable, or moral title or claim to the use of property, or

authority to use (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 166).

[52] With respect to the records involved, Government Relations submitted as follows:

To clarify the second question, Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “proprietary” as

“one that possesses, owns or holds exclusive right to something.” The Ministry submits

that a proprietary interest would suggest an interest that would include an owner. The

IPC Guide to Exemptions defines “right of use” on page 166 as “a legal, equitable, or

moral title or claim to the use of property, or authority to use.”

The Ministry submits that as the owner of the bank account of the NMTA, the Ministry,

has both a proprietary interest and a right of use.

[53] The letters and statements sent to Sandy Bay (records 49 to 51, 143, 147 to 149 and 174)

were sent to Sandy Bay to notify of moneys owed by Sandy Bay, which records 125 to 127

include statements (e.g., in an email) detailing Sandy Bay’s debt. Record 208 includes

information about moneys paid to Sandy Bay. I do not understand how Government

Relations’ argument that it is the “owner of the bank account for the NMTA” [Northern

Municipal Trust Account] has any bearing with respect to whether it has a proprietary

13

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

interest in this information. Government Relations’ explanation does not make this clear,

nor does a review of the records. As the second part of the test is not met, I have no need

to go further in my review of section 18(1)(b) of FOIP.

[54] I find Government Relations did not properly apply section 18(1)(b) of FOIP to records 8,

49 to 51, 125-127, 143, 147 to 149, 174 and 208. As Government Relations has not applied

any other exemptions where it applied section 18(1)(b) of FOIP, I recommend it release

the portions of these records where it applied section 18(1)(b) of FOIP.

5.

Did Government Relations properly apply section 13(2) of FOIP?

[55] Section 13(2) of FOIP provides as follows:

13(2) A head may refuse to give access to information contained in a record that was

obtained in confidence, implicitly or explicitly, from a local authority as defined in the

regulations.

[56] Section 13(2) of FOIP is a discretionary class-based exemption. The provision permits

refusal of access to information in a record where the information was obtained in

confidence, implicitly or explicitly from a local authority (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 34).

[57] The following two-part test can be applied:

1. Was the information obtained from a local authority?

2. Was the information obtained implicitly or explicitly in confidence?

(Guide to FOIP, Ch.4, pp. 34-35).

[58] Government Relations applied section 13(2) of FOIP to portions of records 8, 9, 16, 25, 28,

29, 37, 55, 82, 87, 91, 95, 101, 106, 108, 126, 129, 131-134, 136, 137, 152, 153, 164, 176,

186, 191, 192, 204, 211, 217, 223 to 226, 231 and 234.

14

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

1. Was the information obtained from a local authority?

[59] “Information” means facts or knowledge provided or learned because of research or study

(Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 34).

[60] “Obtained” means to acquire in a way, to get possession of, to procure or to get hold of by

effort (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 34).

[61] Section 13 uses the term “information contained in a record” rather than “a record” like

other exemptions. Therefore, the exemption can include information within a record that

was authored by the government institution provided the information at issue was obtained

from a local authority (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 35).

[62] Government Relations submitted as follows:

The Ministry, through the Northern Municipal Services branch (NMS), holds the

unique responsibility to act as the local government authority for the Northern

Saskatchewan Administration District (NSAD), which is defined as a northern

municipality.

The NMS provides financial support, municipal advisory and community planning

services, and training programs to incorporated municipalities in northern

Saskatchewan. NMS provides financial support through the administration of the

Northern Trust Account (NMTA). NMTA expenses primarily relate to the following

northern municipal programs: (1) municipal revenue sharing; (2) water and sewer

infrastructure; (3) capital grants; (4) residential subdivision development; and (5)

sustainable solid waste management. Some of the information described below was

provided by the Village to the Ministry for payments to be made by the NMTA or for

assistance to be provided by the Ministry.

[63] Section 2(2) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Regulations (FOIP

Regulations) points to the definition of a “local authority” found in subsection 2(f) of The

Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP) (Guide

to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 34).

[64] In this matter, the village that Government Relations is referring to is the Northern Village

of Sandy Bay (Sandy Bay). Sandy Bay, according to the Government of Saskatchewan

15

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

Municipal Directory System is a Northern Village, and so is located in the Northern

Saskatchewan Administration District and governed by The Northern Municipalities Act,

2010. In my office’s Review Report 019-2021 concerning Sandy Bay, I stated it is a local

authority pursuant to section 2(f)(i) of LA FOIP.

[65] Upon review of the records outlined at paragraph [58] where Government Relations has

applied section 13(2) of FOIP, it appears the information is information that would have

been obtained from Sandy Bay. For example, record 9 appears to be information Sandy

Bay provided to Government Relations to indicate its own assessment of something.

Record 55 contains an email from Sandy Bay that includes information about a situation it

faced. These portions of the records, then, meet the first part of the test. I will now assess

the second part of the test.

2. Was the information obtained implicitly or explicitly in confidence?

[66] “In confidence” usually describes a situation of mutual trust in which private matters are

relayed or reported. Information obtained in confidence means the provider of the

information has stipulated how the information can be disseminated. For confidence to be

found, there must be an implicit or explicit agreement or understanding of confidentiality

on the part of both the government institution and the local authority at the time the

information was obtained (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 35).

[67] In its submission, Government Relations described the confidentiality of the information

provided by Sandy Bay in the portions of the records where it applied section 13(2) of

FOIP. Rather than quote all Government Relations’ descriptions, I will quote a sample of

them as follows:

Pages 20 and 34-35 [record 8] are attachments to page 16. They show a breakdown of

SaskPower accounts and the amount owing for each. The Village provided this

information in confidence to verify… The Village was facing financial hardship. The

details of that hardship were provided with an implicit understanding of confidentiality.

…

Pages 44, 46, 48-50, 75-78, 93, 245-246 [records 16, 29, 37 and 91] are Notices from

[redacted information] regarding payroll deductions payable by the Village. Taxpayer

16

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

information is confidential. The Village provided this information to the Ministry with

an implicit understanding of confidentiality.

…

Pages 66-69, 276-281, 285-296 [records 25, 101 and 106-108] are status reports created

by Ministry employees. Status reports were created when Ministry employees provided

on-site assistance to the Village. This assistance related to the confidential financial

affairs of the Village. While the information is captured in an NMS status report, the

village provided the information in confidence.

…

The exemption was applied to one sentence at the bottom of page 132, 133 and 443

[records 55 and 176]. The Village provided the information through its general email

account. There is an implicit understanding of confidentiality because the Village is

specific and candid about its financial difficulties. This level of candor was only

possible because the Village was providing the information to the Ministry on the

understanding of confidentiality.

…

The bottom half of page 376 and 377, 378, 393, 440 and 441 [records 152, 153, 164

and 175] indicate the same email from the Village that contain information regarding

outstanding payments and current challenges that was provided under an expectation

of implicit confidentiality. The next email in the chain on page 376, 379, 380, 392 and

393 contains some of the information provided by the Village in the earlier email. The

internal conversation uses confidential information to determine what the Ministry

needs to assess the current state of the Village’s financial status and operations.

…

Pages 550-556 [record 217], 740-746, 814-820 [records 227 and 231], and 851-858

[record 234] are all labelled as private and confidential. It is audit and management

letters of the Village’s Financial Statements. These letters were provided to the

Ministry to determine.... These letters contain sensitive financial information provided

with an understanding of confidentiality.

[68] It appears Government Relations, from the descriptions in the preceding paragraph, is

stating that the information was obtained “implicitly” in confidence. “Implicitly” means

that the confidentiality is understood even though there is no actual statement of

confidentiality, agreement, or other physical evidence of the understanding that the

information will be kept confidential. Factors to consider if information was determined

implicitly include:

• What is the nature of the information? Would a reasonable person regard it as

confidential? Would it ordinarily be kept confidential by the government institution

or the local authority?

17

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

• Was the information treated consistently in a manner that indicated a concern for

its protection by the government institution and the local authority from the point

it was obtained until the present time?

• Is the information available from sources to which the public has access?

• Does the government institution have any internal policies or procedures that speak

to how records such as the one in question are to be handled confidentially?

• Was there a mutual understanding that the information would be held in

confidence? Mutual understanding means that the government institution and the

local authority both had the same understanding regarding the confidentiality of the

information at the time it was provided. If one party intends the information to be

kept confidential but the other does not, the information is not considered to have

been obtained in confidence. However, mutual understanding alone is not

sufficient. Additional factors must exist.

[69] In my office’s Review Report 172-2019 concerning the Ministry of Education, I stated at

paragraph [36] that information that forms part of public accounts, including moneys owed

to the provincial government by a local authority, are public information and thus classified

that way.

[70] I further note that section 133(1)(a) of The Northern Municipalities Act, under which Sandy

Bay is governed, provides as follows:

133(1) Any person is entitled at any time during regular business hours to inspect and

obtain copies of:

(a) any contract approved by the council, any bylaw or resolution and any account

paid by the council relating to the municipality;

[71] Information such as accounts paid (e.g., power bills at record 8) are open to public

inspection pursuant to section 133(1)(a) of The Northern Municipalities Act.

[72] Lastly, the portions of records that Government Relations states contain “taxpayer

information” (notably records 16, 29, 37 and 91), including account numbers, relates to

Sandy Bay as the taxpayer. The notice(s) is a request from the Canada Revenue Agency to

the province of Saskatchewan, as shown by the portions of the records released to the

18

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

Applicant, to pay money it “would otherwise pay the taxpayer”. These appear to represent

moneys owed to Canada’s Consolidated Revenue Fund, which, much like the province’s

public accounts, is also public information.

[73] I do not believe records that fall into the categories described at paragraphs [69] to [72] of

this Report, which include ones that should normally be available to the public, have an

implicit expectation of confidentiality. Records 8, 9, 16, 25, 28, 29, 37, 55, 82, 87, 91, 95,

101, 106, 108, 126, 129, 131 to 134, 136, 137, 152, 153, 164, 176, 186, 191, 192, 204 and

211 all appear to contain information that meets any of the preceding criteria for being

publicly available, which would mean there could not be an expectation that they remain

confidential. If there are reasons why such information should remain confidential,

Government Relations has not argued as such. Based on this reasoning, the third part of

the test is not met where Government Relations applied section 13(2) of FOIP to the records

as described above.

[74] Having stated this, I do recognize there are instances where information in the possession

or control of a local authority is not open to public inspection. In my office’s Review Report

179-2021 concerning the Resort Village of Kivimaa-Moonlight Bay, I stated at paragraphs

[14] and [15] that auditor letters sent to a municipality separately from the annual audit

report are not open to public inspection because they are excluded from section 117 of The

Municipalities Act. Section 133 of The Northern Municipalities Act, which is equivalent to

section 117 of The Municipalities Act, excludes these types of reports from inspection via

section 211(2) of The Northern Municipalities Act, which provides as follows:

211(2) The auditor shall separately report to the council any improper or unauthorized

transaction or noncompliance with this or another statute or a bylaw that is noted during

the course of an audit.

[75] Based on this factor, confidentiality over these types of records is intended, and so there

would be an implicit expectation of confidentiality over them. As such, the third part of the

test is met where Government Relations applied section 13(2) of FOIP to records 217, 224

to 226, 231 and 234.

19

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

[76] In conclusion, I find Government Relations did not properly apply section 13(2) of FOIP

to records 8, 9, 16, 25, 28, 29, 37, 55, 82, 87, 91, 95, 101, 106, 108, 126, 129, 131 to 134,

136, 137, 152, 153, 164, 176, 186, 191, 192 and 194, 204 and 211, and that it properly

applied section 13(2) of FOIP to records 217, 224 to 226, 231 and 234. Government

Relations has not applied any other exemptions to these same portions of the records, so I

recommend it continue to withhold and release records accordingly.

6.

Did Government Relations properly apply section 19(1)(b) of FOIP?

[77] Section 19(1)(b) of FOIP provides as follows:

19(1) Subject to Part V and this section, a head shall refuse to give access to a record

that contains:

…

(b) financial, commercial, scientific, technical or labour relations information that

is supplied in confidence, implicitly or explicitly, to a government institution by a

third party;

[78] Section 19(1)(b) of FOIP is a mandatory, class-based exemption. It permits refusal of

access in situations where a record contains financial, commercial, scientific, technical or

labour relations information that was supplied in confidence to a government institution by

a third party (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 197).

[79] The following three-part test can be applied:

1. Is the information financial, commercial, scientific, technical or labour relations

information of a third party?

2. Was the information supplied by the third party to a government institution?

3. Was the information supplied in confidence implicitly or explicitly?

(Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, pp. 197-202)

[80] Government Relations applied section 19(1)(b) of FOIP to records 3, 4 and 168.

20

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

1. Is the information financial, commercial, scientific, technical or labour relations

information of a third party?

[81] Government Relations stated the information involved in these records is commercial and

financial in nature.

[82] “Financial information” is information regarding monetary resources, such as financial

capabilities, assets and liabilities, past or present. Common examples are financial

forecasts, investment strategies, budgets, and profit and loss statements. The financial

information must be specific to a third party (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 198).

[83] “Commercial information” is information relating to the buying, selling or exchange of

merchandise or services. This can include third party associations, past history, references

and insurance policies and pricing structures, market research, business plans, and

customer records (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 198).

[84] Types of information included in the definition of commercial information can include:

• offers of products and services a third-party business proposes to supply or perform;

• a third-party business’ experiences in commercial activities where this information

has commercial value;

• terms and conditions for providing services and products by a third party;

• lists of customers, suppliers or sub-contractors compiled by a third-party business

for its use in its commercial activities or enterprises - such lists may take time and

effort to compile, if not skill;

• methods a third-party business proposes to use to supply goods and services; and

• number of hours a third-party business proposes to take to complete contracted

work or tasks.

(Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 198)

[85] Government Relations submitted as follows:

21

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

The information found on pages 4-14 [records 3 and 4] is an agreement between the

Village of Sandy Bay and the [name redacted] (Band). This agreement is classified as

commercial services. There is also mention of financial sharing and payments to be

made regarding the transfer of operating and maintenance responsibilities.

The information was provided by the Village of Sandy Bay to the Ministry. The

agreement was provided in confidence to illustrate the challenges the Village is facing.

Pages 405-427 [record 168] are engineering specs and drafts provided by [name

redacted] for upgrades to the Village’s sewer and water system. They are the property

of the consulting firm.

[86] In my office’s Review Report 306-2016 concerning the [then] Ministry of Highways and

Infrastructure (Highways), I considered section 19(1)(b) of FOIP as it relates to agreements

made between Highways and Canada Pacific Railway (CP). The agreement described what

each party would contribute to the creation of a project involving the Global Transportation

Hub. In this report, Highways argued the information was both financial and commercial

in nature. At paragraphs [17] and [18], I stated as follows:

[17] CP asserts that the whole agreement qualifies as financial and commercial

information. The Ministry submits that the “funding” portion of the agreement

qualifies as financial information. I am not persuaded that any information would

qualify as financial information of the third party. As per the definition above, financial

information would typically describe a third party’s financial resources or assets and

liabilities. It also must be specific to the third party. The record simply outlines what

commitments each party has made with respect to achieving this common project.

[18] The Ministry asserted that the portions of the agreement that describe project

contribution, land for the facility and the design and specifications would qualify as

commercial information. The agreement does not relate to the buying and selling of

merchandise or services, it relates to the commitments of each party to complete a

project. The record does not qualify as commercial information.

[87] As with the records in Review Report 306-2016, the records before me do not contain

financial information relating to the financial resources or assets of the third parties

involved. Government Relations has also not sufficiently stated how the information in

question would have any sort of commercial value for each of the third parties involved,

and a review of the records does not make this abundantly clear, either. As such, the first

part of the test is not met. As the first part of the test is not met, I do not need to go further.

22

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

[88] I find, therefore, Government Relations did not properly apply section 19(1)(b) of FOIP to

records 3, 4 and 168. As Government Relations has not applied any other exemptions to

these same portions of the records, I recommend it release them.

[89] I add that in past review reports concerning municipalities, (e.g., Review Report 122/2014

concerning the Village of Lebret), I stated that contracts approved by council for the

delivery of third-party services are open to inspection pursuant to section 117(1)(a) of The

Municipalities Act. Similarly, records 3 and 4, which are contracts that also include

invoices for the contracted services, would normally be open to public inspection pursuant

to the equivalent section 133(1)(a) of The Northern Municipalities Act, which I mentioned

previously in this Report.

7.

Did Government Relations properly apply section 22(a) of FOIP.

[90] Section 22(a) of FOIP provides as follows:

22 A head may refuse to give access to a record that:

(a) contains any information that is subject to any privilege that is available at law,

including solicitor-client privilege;

[91] Section 22(a) of FOIP is a discretionary, class-based exemption. It permits refusal of access

in situations where a record contains information that is subject to any legal privilege,

including solicitor-client privilege.

[92] “Privilege” is a special right, exemption, or immunity granted to a person or class of

persons. Government Relations appears to be claiming solicitor-client privilege over the

portions of the records where it applied section 22(a) of FOIP. The purpose of “solicitor-

client” privilege is to assure clients of confidentiality and enable them to speak honestly

and candidly with their legal representatives. The privilege has long been recognized as

“fundamental to the proper functioning of our legal system” and a cornerstone of access to

justice. It has evolved from a rule of evidence to a substantive rule that is more nuanced

23

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

than simply any communications between lawyer and client (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, pp.

256-258).

[93] The following three-part test can be applied:

1. Is the record a communication between solicitor and client?

2. Does the communication entail the seeking or giving of legal advice?

3. Did the parties intend for the communication to be treated confidentially?

(Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, pp. 258-262)

[94] Government Relations applied section 22(a) of FOIP to record 57, which includes three

emails. As I found section 17(1)(b) of FOIP applies to the contents of the third email, I am

only dealing with section 22(a) of FOIP on the first two emails. Regardless, the third email

does not directly involve Government Relations’ legal counsel, and so would not have met

the first part of the test for this section, anyway.

[95] The first email is from Government Relations’ legal counsel to a Government Relations

official. This email has four attachments. Government Relations confirmed the attachments

have been provided to the Applicant and that section 22(a) of FOIP has not been applied to

them, so I do not need to worry about them in my review of section 22(a) of FOIP.

[96] The second email is from a Government Relations official to Government Relations’ legal

counsel.

[97] In both emails, Government Relations withheld the contents, plus the name of Government

Relations’ legal counsel and the individuals with whom they had contact, pursuant to

section 22(a) of FOIP.

[98] The following two-part test can be applied:

24

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

1. Is the record a communication between solicitor and client?

2. Does the communication entail the seeking or giving of legal advice?

(Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, pp. 258-260)

[99] A “communication” is the process of bringing an idea to another’s perception; the message

or ideas so expressed or exchanged; the interchange of messages or ideas by speech,

writing, gestures, or conduct (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 259). In this matter, an email is

involved, which is a form of communication.

[100] As Government Relations’ legal counsel is a member of the Law Society of Saskatchewan,

a solicitor is involved.

[101] A “client” is a person who consults with their legal counsel, and on whose behalf the

solicitor renders or agrees to render legal advice. A client is also a person who, having

consulted a solicitor, reasonably believes they have agreed to render legal services on their

behalf (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 258). In this matter, the client is Government Relations.

[102] “Legal advice” means a legal opinion about a legal issue, and a recommended course of

action, based on legal considerations, regarding a matter with legal implications. The

second part of the test is satisfied where the person seeking advice has a reasonable concern

that a particular decision or course of action may have legal implications and turns to their

solicitor to determine what those legal implications might be. The privilege applies not

only to the records that actually give the legal advice but also to those that seek it and that

provide factual information relative to which the advice is sought (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4,

pg. 261).

[103] The privilege applies to records that quote or discuss the legal advice. For example,

information in written communications between officials or employees of a government

institution in which the officials or employees quote or discuss the legal advice given by

the government institution’s solicitor (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 261).

25

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

[104] Business or policy advice provided by a lawyer will not attract the privilege. The Supreme

Court of Canada in R. v. Campbell, 1999 (SCC), [1999] recognized this:

It is, of course, not everything done by a government (or other) lawyer that attracts

solicitor-client privilege. While some of what government lawyers do is

indistinguishable from the work of private practitioners, they may and frequently do

have multiple responsibilities including, for example, participation in various operating

committees of their respective departments. Government lawyers who have spent years

with a particular client department may be called upon to offer policy advice that has

nothing to do with their legal training or expertise, but draws on departmental know-

how. Advice given by lawyers on matters outside the solicitor-client relationship is not

protected… Whether or not solicitor-client privilege attaches in any of these situations

depends on the nature of the relationship, the subject matter of the advice and the

circumstances in which it is sought and rendered.

(Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, pp. 261-262)

[105] In this matter, Government Relations has not commented on the type of legal advice sought

from or provided by its legal counsel. Rather, Government Relations’ submission speaks

mainly to confidentiality. From a review of the records, however, I can tell that Government

Relations sought involvement by its legal counsel on a matter and legal counsel appears to

have responded with advice. As such, the second part of the test is met, and I will now

consider the third part of the test.

3. Did the parties intend for the communication to be treated confidentially?

[106] There must be an expectation on the part of the government institution that the

communication will be confidential. “Not every aspect of relations between a solicitor and

a client is necessarily confidential”. Confidentiality is the sine qua non of privilege.

Without confidentiality there can be no privilege and when confidentiality ends so too

should the privilege (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 262).

[107] Not all communications between a solicitor and their client are privileged. For example,

provision of purely business advice by in-house counsel or purely social interactions

between counsel and their clients will not constitute privileged communications.

Documents that are provided to a solicitor or “which simply come into the possession of a

lawyer that are not related to the provision of legal advice are not privileged”. Not every

26

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

record dropped off, funneled through or otherwise given to a government institution’s

solicitor has been given in confidence for the purpose of giving or seeking legal advice.

Just because a solicitor may have been involved is not enough to find that privilege applies

to records. For example, copying the solicitor in emails does not automatically make them

subject to solicitor-client privilege (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 262).

[108] With respect to confidentiality, Government Relations stated as follows:

1. The confidentiality of communications between solicitor and client may be raised in

any circumstances where such communications are likely to be disclosed without the

client's consent.

2. Unless the law provides otherwise, when and to the extent that the legitimate exercise

of a right would interfere with another person's right to have his communications with

his lawyer kept confidential, the resulting conflict should be resolved in favour of

protecting the confidentiality.

3.When the law gives someone the authority to do something which, in the

circumstances of the case, might interfere with that confidentiality, the decision to do

so and the choice of means of exercising that authority should be determined with a

view to not interfering with it except to the extent absolutely necessary in order to

achieve the ends sought by the enabling legislation.

4. Acts providing otherwise in situations under paragraph 2 and enabling legislation

referred to in paragraph 3 must be interpreted restrictively.

The Supreme Court of Canada has also adopted the articulation of solicitor-client

privilege set out in Wigmore on Evidence, vol. 8 (McNaughton rev. 1961), para. 2292,

which states:

Where legal advice of any kind is sought from a professional legal adviser in his

capacity as such, the communications relating to that purpose, made in confidence

by the client, are at his instance permanently protected from disclosure by himself

or by the legal adviser, except the protection be waived.

Descôteaux et al. v. Meirzwinski, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860;

R. v. Campbell, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565

The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected an approach to solicitor-client privilege that

would distinguish between a fact and a communication:

[19] Although Descoteaux appears to limit the protection of the privilege to

communications between lawyers and their clients, this Court has since rejected a

category-based approach to solicitor-client privilege that distinguishes between a

27

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

fact and a communication for the purpose of establishing what is covered by the

privilege (Marando, at para. 30). While it is true that not everything that happens

in a solicitor-client relationship will be a privileged communication, facts

connected with that relationship (such as the bills of account at issue in Marando)

must be presumed to be privileged absent evidence to the contrary (Marando, at

paras. 33-34; see also Foster Wheeler, at para 42.) This rule applies regardless of

the context in which it is invoked (Foster Wheeler, at para 34; R v Gruenke, [1991]

3 S.C.R. 263, at p. 289).

[20] In the case at bar, therefore, we cannot conclude at the outset that Mr.

Thompson’s communications with his clients are distinct from financial records

that disclose various facts about their relationships in order to determine whether

solicitor-client privilege covers those facts. Absent proof to the contrary, all of this

information is prima facie privileged, and therefore confidential. [emphasis added]

Canada (National Revenue) v Thompson, 2016 SCC 21.

Thus, there is a rebuttable presumption that all communications between a solicitor and

client and the information they share are prima facie confidential:

[40] From this perspective, it is not appropriate to establish a strict demarcation

between communications that are protected by professional secrecy and facts that

are not so protected (Maranda, at paras. 30-33; Foster Wheeler, at para. 38). The

line between facts and communications may be difficult to draw (S. N. Lederman,

A.W. Bryant and M.K. Fuerst, The Law of Evidence in Canada (4th ed. 2014), at

p. 941). For example, there are circumstances in which non-payment of a lawyer’s

fees may be protected by professional secrecy (R. v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10,

[2010] 1 S.C.R. 331, at para. 30). The Court has found that “[c]ertain facts, if

disclosed, can sometimes speak volumes about a communication” (Maranda, at

para. 48). This is why there must be a rebuttable presumption to the effect that “all

communications between client and lawyer and the information they shared would

be considered prima facie confidential in nature” (Foster Wheeler, at para. 42).

[emphasis added]

Canada (Attorney General) v Chambre des notaires du Québec, 2016 SCC 20

(Chambre des notaires).

In Chambre des notaires, the Court also said, at paragraph 72: “In Foster Wheeler, the

Court observed that ‘[i]t would be inaccurate to reduce the content of the obligation of

confidentiality to opinions, advice or counsel given by lawyers to their clients’ (para.

38).”

Although the dates of communications and the parties to communications are now

being disclosed to you for the purposes of this review, it is respectfully submitted that

the date upon which a communication occurred, and the parties to the communication

are protected by the privilege -- since “all communications between client and lawyer”

are protected -- and should not be disclosed to the applicant or referred to in your report.

28

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

There is a solicitor client relationship between [name redacted], Senior Crown Counsel,

Legal Services Division and the Ministry of Government Relations. Pursuant to the

case law, there is a rebuttable presumption that all the information shared between them

is prima facie confidential. There is a solicitor client relationship and the information

shared between them is prima facie confidential. Therefore, the three emails in the

thread are protected by solicitor client privilege and clause 22(a) has been properly

applied to this information.

[109] Based on what I have quoted from Government Relations in the preceding paragraph,

Government Relations appears to be arguing that confidentiality should, because of the

nature of solicitor-client privilege, apply to the entire communication, including

information related to the identities of those involved in the communications.

[110] With respect to the email content for record 57, Government Relations stated the

communication was intended to be confidential, so the third part of the test applies to the

email contents.

[111] Government Relations has also stated confidentiality should extend to the name and contact

information for its legal counsel, and to the identities of those involved in the legal

counsel’s communications. Ostensibly, this is because “certain facts, if disclosed, can

sometimes speak volumes about a communication”.

[112] In some cases, there may be reasons to mask the identity of legal counsel and their clients.

I would expect, however, those occasions to be rare and to be based on reasonable

considerations or statutory restrictions. In its submission, Government Relations has not

offered any such reasonable considerations or statutory restrictions on releasing this type

of information, and a review of the record in question does not offer any, either. I am not

convinced in a matter such as this that a reasonable person would think the legal counsel’s

identity and contact information, as well as the identities of those they communicated with,

should be masked. The role played by a government institution’s legal counsel would be

obvious to most, particularly with respect to the public matters on which they would advise.

As such, the third part of the test is not met for the identity and contact information of

29

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

Government Relations’ legal counsel, or the identities of the individuals they had contact

with.

[113] In conclusion, I find Government Relations properly applied section 22(a) of FOIP as it

applied it to the contents of the emails in record 57, and recommend it continue to withhold

this information pursuant to section 22(a) of FOIP.

[114] I also find Government Relations did not properly apply section 22(a) of FOIP as it applied

it in record 57 to the identity and contact information of Government Relations’ legal

counsel, or to the identities of the individuals with whom they had contact. I add that

Government Relations also applied sections 22(b) and (c) of FOIP to this same information

in record 57. My reasoning for why this information should not be masked would not

change in a review of sections 22(b) and (c) of FOIP, so I find Government Relations did

not properly apply section 22(b) and (c) of FOIP to the same portions of record 57 where

it applied section 22(a) of FOIP. I recommend Government Relations release this

information from record 57.

[115] To this, I further add that Government Relations applied sections 22(b) and (c) of FOIP on

records 144 and 145 to the name and contact information of its legal counsel. These are the

only portions of the records where Government Relations applied sections 22(b) and (c) of

FOIP upon which I need to review these exemptions. Again, however, my reasoning for

why this information should not be masked would not change from my analysis of section

22(a) of FOIP on this type of information. As such, I find Government Relations did not

properly apply sections 22(b) and (c) of FOIP to the name and contact information of

Government Relations’ legal counsel in records 144 and 145 and recommend it release this

information where it applied sections 22(b) and (c) of FOIP on these records.

8.

Did Government Relations properly apply section 16(1)(d)(i) of FOIP?

[116] Government Relations was not clear on which subsection of section 16(1) of FOIP it was

relying, but in its submission provided arguments for subsection 16(1)(d)(i) of FOIP, which

provides as follows:

30

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

16(1) A head shall refuse to give access to a record that discloses a confidence of the

Executive Council, including:

…

(d) records that contain briefings to members of the Executive Council in relation

to matters that:

(i) are before, or are proposed to be brought before, the Executive Council or

any of its committees; or

[117] Section 16(1)(d) of FOIP is a mandatory class-based exemption. It permits refusal of access

in situations where release of a record could disclose a confidence of Cabinet including

records that contain briefings to members of Cabinet in relation to matters that are before,

or proposed to be brought before, Cabinet or any of its committees. It also permits refusal

where release of a record could disclose matters that are the subject of consultations

described in subsection 16(1)(c) of FOIP (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 112).

[118] “Cabinet confidences” are generally defined as, in the broadest sense, the political secrets

of Ministers individually and collectively, the disclosure of which would make it very

difficult for the government to speak in unison before Parliament and the public (Guide to

FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 112).

[119] “Including” means that the list of information that follows is incomplete (non-exhaustive).

The examples in the provision are the types of information that could be presumed to

disclose a confidence of the Executive Council (Cabinet). An important qualifier here is

that the records must be for the purpose of briefing a minister in relation to matters before

Cabinet, proposed to be brought before, or for use in a discussion with other ministers as

in subsection 16(1)(c) of FOIP (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 112).

[120] The following two-part test can be applied. However, only one of the questions needs to be

answered in the affirmative for the exemption to apply. There may be circumstances where

both questions apply and can be answered in the affirmative.

1. Does the record contain briefings to members of Cabinet in relation to matters that

are before, or are proposed to be brought before, Cabinet or any of its committees?

31

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

2. Does the record contain briefings to members of Cabinet on matters that relate to the

making of government decisions or the formulation of government policy?

(Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, pp. 113-114)

[121] Government Relations applied section 16(1)(d)(i) of FOIP to one bullet of information on

record 245, and to one bullet of information on record 247. The portions of each bullet that

have not been redacted contain the same exact statement or language (i.e., they are the same

bullet on each record).

[122] “Briefing” means a written summary of short duration; concise; using few words; a

summary of facts or a meeting for giving information or instructions.

[123] “Executive Council” means the Executive Council appointed pursuant to The Executive

Government Administration Act. It consists of the Premier and Cabinet Ministers.

Executive Council is also referred to as “Cabinet”. Cabinet has also been defined as the

committee of senior ministers (heading individual provincial government ministries) which

acts collectively with the Premier to decide matters of government policy (Guide to FOIP,

Ch. 4, p. 114).

[124] In terms of its arguments, Government Relations submitted as follows:

The IPC Guide to Exemptions offers different tests for the clauses set out in subsection

16(1).

However, the Ministry believes that one test should be used: Test: Would this record

disclose a confidence of the Executive Council?

The bullet point in the middle of pages 880 and 885…

[125] The record itself, is not specifically a briefing to Cabinet. The portions of each bullet (in

each record) where Government Relations applied section 16(1)(d)(i) of FOIP, which were

released to the Applicant, reveal it had to do with a signed agreement made between the

province and the Government of Canada. This makes it obvious it occurred in the past, and

an Internet search supports this. Because section 16(1)(d)(i) relates to matters that are

32

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

before, or proposed to be brought before, Cabinet or any of its committees, neither test

applies because the matter is no longer before Cabinet or proposed to be before Cabinet. It

is also now public information.

[126] I find, therefore, Government Relations did not properly apply section 16(1)(d)(i) of FOIP

to records 245 and 247. As Government Relations did not apply any other exemptions to

this same information, I recommend it release this information.

9.

Did Government Relations properly apply section 29(1) of FOIP?

[127] Section 29(1) of FOIP provides as follows:

29(1) No government institution shall disclose personal information in its possession

or under its control without the consent, given in the prescribed manner, of the

individual to whom the information relates except in accordance with this section or

section 30.

[128] Section 29(1) of FOIP protects the privacy of individuals whose personal information may

be contained within records responsive to an access to information request made by

someone else (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 281).

[129] When dealing with information in a record that appears to be personal information, the first

step is to confirm the information indeed qualifies as personal information pursuant to

section 24 of FOIP (Guide to FOIP, Ch. 4, p. 281).

[130] Government Relations applied section 29(1) of FOIP to records 2, 6, 16, 26, 28, 33 to 36,

40, 47, 53, 55, 56, 63, 66, 68, 79, 87 to 89, 92, 96, 98, 99, 101, 106, 108 to 110, 112, 118,

123, 125, 127, 134, 136, 137, 139, 140, 143, 144, 149, 151, 153, 154, 164, 165, 169, 174,

176, 181, 184, 186 to 198, 191, 192, 195, 197, 200 to 204, 208, 211 to 215, 223, 229, 232

and 252.

[131] The Ministry stated the withheld information includes the names of Sandy Bay councillors

or individuals employed by Sandy Bay, names and email addresses of individuals

contracted to work as Sandy Bay’s accountants, names and email addresses of “individuals

33

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

employed by a third party who is not a government institution”, names and interactions

with certain individuals including employment status, information relating to a specific

individual (e.g., name, certain actions, concerns of village in relation to the individual,

etc.), and information on a ministry employee’s medical status.

[132] First, in numerous past reports, I have stated that the following is not personal information,

often referring to it as “business card information”: the names, titles and business contact

information of municipal councillors and employees (Review Report 109-2021); the

names, titles and contact information of anyone contracted by a municipality (e.g., lawyers

or auditors) (Review Report 109-2021); and the names, titles and contact information of

anyone working in a professional or business capacity (Review Report 322-2021, 030-

2022), which would include businesses that have provided goods or services to Sandy Bay.

Contact information includes personal telephone numbers or emails that are used in a

professional or business capacity.

[133] Upon review of the records, I note that most places where Government Relations applied

section 29(1) of FOIP contain information that is not personal information. For example,

throughout, Government Relations redacted the names and contact information of Sandy

Bay councillors and employees – this is not personal information. Throughout,

Government Relations redacted the name and contact information of accountants who

were, as required by The Northern Municipalities Act, performing audits. On some

portions, Government Relations also redacted the names of individuals who, in a business

capacity, had dealings with Sandy Bay (e.g., the name of the individual representing the

company TradeWest, information which was released to the Applicant, in record 47). None

of these instances fall within the scope of personal information as defined by section 29(1)

of FOIP.

[134] The exceptions to this, I note, are as follows:

• Record 144 (page 361) there is a personal comment a Government Relations

employee made to another Government Relations employee; and

34

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

• Record 153 (page 378) and record 164 (page 392) there is information on the past

employment of a village employee, plus the name of a community person who

made a complaint about Sandy Bay who, if their name was released, would be made

known in relation to the complaint given where they work.

[135] The information in the preceding paragraph qualifies as “personal information” pursuant

to sections 24(1)(b) and (k)(i) of FOIP, which provide as follows:

24(1) Subject to subsections (1.1) and (2), “personal information” means personal

information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form, and includes:

…

(b) information that relates to the education or the criminal or employment history

of the individual or information relating to financial transactions in which the

individual has been involved;

…

(k) the name of the individual where:

(i) it appears with other personal information that relates to the individual;

[136] I add that Government Relations identified record 204 (pages 494, 495) as containing

personal information pursuant to FOIP. This portion contains information that two

Government Relations employees shared with each other about their health status.

Government Relations is a “trustee” pursuant to section 2(t)(i) of The Health Information

Protection Act (HIPA), and so is required to withhold personal health information where it

does not have consent of the individual to disclose it pursuant to section 27(1) of HIPA. As

such, the type of information involved would instead qualify as “personal health

information” pursuant to section 2(m)(i) of HIPA, which provides as follows:

2(m) “personal health information” means, with respect to an individual, whether living

or deceased:

(i) information with respect to the physical or mental health of the individual;

[137] In conclusion, I find Government Relations did not properly apply section 29(1) of FOIP

where it applied it on records 2, 6, 16, 26, 28, 33-36, 40, 47, 53, 55, 56, 63, 66, 68, 79, 87

to 89, 92, 96, 98, 99, 101, 106, 108 to 110, 112, 118, 123, 125, 127, 134, 136, 137, 139,

140, 143, 149, 151, 154, 165, 169, 174, 176, 181, 184, 186-198, 191, 192, 195, 197, 200

35

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

to 204, 208, 211 to 215, 223, 229, 232 and 252, and that it did properly apply section 29(1)

of FOIP where it applied it on records 144, 153 and 164. I recommend Government

Relations release or continue to withhold this information accordingly.

[138] I further find there is personal health information as defined by section 2(m)(i) of HIPA in

record 204 that Government Relations should continue to withhold pursuant to section

27(1) of HIPA.

10.

Is there information in the record that is not responsive to the access to information

request?

[139] When a government institution receives an access to information request, it must determine

which information is responsive to the access to information request. “Responsive” means

relevant. The term describes anything that is reasonably related to the request. It follows

that any information or records that do not reasonably relate to an applicant’s request will

be considered “not responsive” (Guide to FOIP, Chapter 3, “Access to Records”, updated

June 29, 2021 [Guide to FOIP, Ch. 3], p. 82).

[140] Government Relations claimed portions of records 7, 27, 22, 52, 54, 61, 64, 70, 82, 92, 96,

98, 114, 123, 132, 133, 136, 137, 145, 150, 193, 194, 204, 205 and 213 are not responsive

to the access to information request. Government Relations stated these records include

documents that are not specific to Sandy Bay, or that refer to general administration.

[141] Upon review, it is apparent that the portions of the records Government Relations marked

not responsive do not contain information specific to Sandy Bay. For example, record 7 is

a report completed for a different municipality, while the information withheld as not

responsive in record 27 is administrative in nature.

[142] I find, therefore, Government Relations properly marked portions of records 7, 27, 22, 52,

54, 61, 64, 70, 82, 92, 96, 98, 114, 123, 132, 133, 136, 137, 145, 150, 193, 194, 204, 205

and 213 as not responsive to the access to information request. I recommend, nonetheless,

36

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

that Government Relations release this information subject to any exemptions found to

apply.

IV

FINDINGS

[143] I find Government Relations properly applied section 17(1)(b) of FOIP to records 1, 9, 25,

26, 33, 44, 46, 48, 55-57, 70, 73, 76, 78, 81, 92, 96, 98, 100, 107, 109, 114, 115, 117, 119,

122, 123, 127, 130, 135, 138, 144-146, 150, 152, 153, 164 to 166, 172, 175, 178, 186, 187,

191, 192, 194, 200, 205 to 207, 209 to 211, 213, 214, 224 to 227, 229, 235, 245, 247 and

253.

[144] I find Government Relations properly applied section 17(1)(a) of FOIP to records 1, 20,

25, 26, 28, 29, 33 to 36, 55 to 57, 63, 70, 73, 76, 81, 86, 87, 92, 96, 98, 99, 101, 106 to 110,

111, 117, 119, 121 to 123, 127, 132, 133, 135, 137, 138, 150, 144-146, 164, 165, 172, 175,

178, 186, 194, 205 to 207, 210, 213, 214, 227, 245, 247 and 250.

[145] I find Government Relations did not properly apply section 18(1)(b) of FOIP to records 8,

49 to 51, 125-127, 143, 147 to 149, 174 and 208.

[146] I find Government Relations did not properly apply section 13(2) of FOIP to records 8, 9,

16, 25, 28, 29, 37, 55, 82, 87, 91, 95, 101, 106, 108, 126, 129, 131 to 134, 136, 137, 152,

153, 164, 176, 186, 191, 192, 204 and 211, and that it properly applied section 13(2) of

FOIP to records 217, 224 to 226, 231 and 234.

[147] I find Government Relations did not properly apply section 19(1)(b) of FOIP to records 3,

4 and 168.

[148] I find Government Relations did not properly apply section 22(a) of FOIP as it applied it

in record 57 to the identity and contact information of Government Relations’ legal

counsel, and that it did properly apply section 22(a) to the contents of the email in record

57.

37

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

[149] I find Government Relations did not properly apply sections 22(b) and (c) of FOIP to the

name and contact information of Government Relations’ legal counsel in records 144 and

145.

[150] I find Government Relations did not properly apply section 16(1)(d)(i) of FOIP to records

245 and 247.

[151] I find Government Relations did not properly apply section 29(1) of FOIP where it applied

it on records 2, 6, 16, 26, 28, 33-36, 40, 47, 53, 55, 56, 63, 66, 68, 79, 87 to 89, 92, 96, 98,

99, 101, 106, 108 to 110, 112, 118, 123, 125, 127, 134, 136, 137, 139, 140, 143, 149, 151,

154, 165, 169, 174, 176, 181, 184, 186-198, 191, 192, 195, 197, 200 to 204, 208, 211 to

215, 223, 229, 232 and 252, and that it did properly apply section 29(1) of FOIP where it

applied it on records 144, 153 and 164.

[152] I find there is personal health information as defined by section 2(m)(i) of HIPA and that

section 27(1) of HIPA applies to it.

[153] I find Government Relations properly marked portions of records 7, 27, 22, 52, 54, 61, 64,

70, 82, 92, 96, 98, 114, 123, 132, 133, 136, 137, 145, 150, 193, 194, 204, 205 and 213 as

not responsive to the access to information request.

V

RECOMMENDATIONS

[154] I recommend Government Relations continue to withhold the portions of the records where

it applied section 17(1)(b) of FOIP.

[155] I recommend Government Relations continue to withhold the portions of the records where

it applied section 17(1)(a) of FOIP.

[156] I recommend Government Relations release the portions of the records where it applied

section 18(1)(b) of FOIP.

38

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

[157] I recommend Government Relations continue to withhold the portions of records 217, 224

to 226, 231 and 234 where it applied section 13(2) of FOIP and it release the remainder of

the records where it applied section 13(2) of FOIP.

[158] I recommend Government Relations release the portions of the records where it applied

section 19(1)(b) of FOIP.

[159] I recommend Government Relations continue to withhold the contents of the email at

record 57 pursuant to section 22(a) of FOIP, and that it release the remaining portions

where it applied sections 22(a), (b) and (c) of FOIP on record 57.

[160] I recommend Government Relations release the portions of the record where it applied

section 29(1) of FOIP except for the portions where it applied section 29(1) of FOIP to

records 144, 153 and 164, which I recommend Government Relations continue to withhold

pursuant to section 29(1) of FOIP.

[161] I recommend Government Relations continue to withhold the personal health information

on record 204 pursuant to section 27(1) of HIPA.

[162] I recommend Government Relations release the portions of the records where it marked

them not responsive subject to any exemptions found to apply to them.

Dated at Regina, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this 5^thday of Julye, 2022.

Ronald J. Kruzeniski, Q.C.

Saskatchewan Information and Privacy

Commissioner

39

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

Appendix

Record Pages

Description

Exemptions Applied (FOIP)

1

Email

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

2

3

4

6

2

Email

4

19(1)(b)

29(1)

5 to 14

Attachments to record 3

118 to 124 Attachment to record 5 (Landfill

inspection report)

125 to 130 Attachment to record 5 (Landfill

inspection report)

Not Responsive

8

18, 19

Attachment to record 7

18(1)(b)

13(2)

20

21 to 33

34, 35

36

18(1)(b)

13(2)

9

Email

13(2)

17(1)(b)(i)

12

16

39

44

Attachment to record 11

18(1)(b)

13(2)

29(1)

45

13(2)

29(1)

46

13(2)

29(1)

47

13(2)

29(1)

48 to 51

55

13(2)

29(1)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

13(2),

20

25

Email

66 to 69

Attachment to record 24

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

26

27

70, 71

72, 73

Attachment to record 24

Email

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

Not Responsive

40

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

28

29

74

Attachment to record 27

Attachment to record 28

13(2)

17(1)(a)

29(1)

75, 76

13(2)

17(1)(a)

77

78

13(2)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

33

82, 83

Email

Not responsive

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

Not responsive

Not Responsive

29(1)

17(1)(a)

29(1)

17(1)(a)

29(1)

84

34

35

36

85 to 88

89-90

Attachment to record 33

Attachment to record 35

91, 92

37

40

44

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

93

Attachment to record 35

Email chain

13(2)

96, 97

108

29(1)

Attachment to record 40

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

110, 111

112

Email

113

Email

17(1)(b)(i)

18(1)(b)(i)

Not Responsive

29(1)

114

Attachment to record 48

Email Chain

115

116

117

118 to 124 Attachment to record 52 and

record 5

125 to 130 Attachment to record 52 and

record 5

54

55

Not Responsive

132, 133

Email

13(2)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

41

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

56

57

135

Attachment to record 55

29(1)

136

17(1)(a)

139, 140

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

17(1)(a)

141, 142

Email Chain

17(1)(b)(i)

22(a)

22(b)(c)

61

62

63

147

attachment to record 57

Not Responsive

148 to 153 attachment to record 57

154, 155 Email Chain

17(1)(a)

29(1)

64

66

68

70

158 to 185 Attachment to record 63

Not responsive

189, 190

196

Attachment to record 65

Email Chain

29(1)

203

Email

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

204, 205

Not responsive

73

76

78

208 to 210 Email Chain

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

217

223

Email Chain

Attachment to record 76 (duplicate: 17(1)(b)

this is also record 40)

79

81

224

227

Email

29(1)

Email

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

82

228

Attachment to record 81, includes 13(2)

briefing note

17(1)(a)

Not Responsive

86

87

239

240

Email Chain

17(1)(a)

Attachment to record 86, includes 13(2)

briefing note

17(1)(a)

29(1)

88

89

91

92

241

Email Chain

29(1)

242, 243

245, 246

247

Attachment to record 88

Attachment to record 90

Email

29(1)

13(2)

17(1)(b)

Not Responsive

248

249

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

17(1)(a)

Rest of page

42

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

17(1)(b)(i)

Not Responsive

250

Subject lines

29(1)

Not Responsive

93

95

251 to 261 Attachments to record 92

263

264

265

Attachment to record 94, includes 13(2)

briefing note

17(1)(a)

Not responsive

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

Not Responsive

17(1)(a)

96

Email

266

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

Not Responsive

98

99

268 to 269 Email

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

Not Responsive

270

First and last sentence of email, and 17(1)(a)

name of attachment

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

Not Responsive

271 to 274 Attachment to record 98

17(1)(a)

29(1)

Not Responsive

100

101

275

Email

17(1)(b)(i)

276 to 281 Attachment to record 100

203 to 205 Attachment to record 102

285 to 289 Attachment to record 105

13(2)

17(1)(a)

29(1)

104

106

107

17(1)(a)

(duplicate: this is also record 70) 17(1)(b)

Not Responsive

13(2)

17(1)(a)

29(1)

290

Email

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

43

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

108

109

291 to 296 Attachment to record 107

13(2)

17(1)(a)

29(1)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

297

298

Email

299

300

29(1)

110

Email

17(1)(a)

29(1)

111

112

302 to 304 Email

305

17(1)(a)

29(1)

Not Responsive

306

29(1)

114

308

Email

Not Responsive

17(1)(b)(i)

309

17(1)(b)(i)

115

117

310, 311

313

Email Chain

Email

17(1)(b)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

314

118

119

315 to 318 Email Chain

319, 320 Email

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

121

323 to 326 Email

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

Not responsive

122

123

327 to 329 Email Chain

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

17(1)(a)

330, 331

Email Chain

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

Not Responsive

17(1)(b)(i)

18(1)(b)

125

126

335

Email Chain

29(1)

336

Attachment to record 125

13(2)

18(1)(b)

44

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

127

337

Attachment to record 125

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

18(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

129

130

131

132

339

340

341

342

Briefing Note

13(2)

17(1)(b)(ii)

13(2)

17(1)(a)

Not responsive

13(2)

133

343

Briefing Note

17(1)(a)

Not responsive

13(2)

134

135

136

344

345

346

Email

29(1)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

13(2)

347

348

Not Responsive

137

349, 350

Email

13(2)

17(1)(a)

Not Responsive

351

29(1)

Not Responsive

29(1)

352

353

138

Email

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

139

140

143

354-355

356

Email Chain

Attachment to record 139

Attachment to record 142

29(1)

359

18(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

144

360

361

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

362 to 364 Email Chain

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

22(b)

22(c)

29(1)

45

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

145

365

366

Email Chain

17(1)(a)

22(b)

22(c)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

22(b)

22(c)

367

368

369

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

22(b)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

22(b)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

22(b)

146

147

148

149

370

371

372

Attachment to record 146

Added 18(1)(b)(i)

18(1)(b)(i)

Removed 17(1)(b)(i).

Added 18(1)(b)(i),

and 29(1)

150

373

Email Chain

17(1)(b)(i)

Not Responsive

151

152

374, 375

376, 377

Email Chain

29(1)

Attachment to record 151

13(2)

17(1)(b)(i)

153

378 to 380 Email Chain

13(2)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

154

164

381, 382

29(1)

392, 393

Email Chain

Email

13(2)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

165

394

395

396

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

46

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

166

168

169

172

397-398

405 to 427 Attachment to record 166

428 Attachment to record 166

433 to 437 Email Chain

Email Chain

17(1)(b)(i)

19(1)(b)

29(1)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

22(a)

174

175

439

Attachment to record 173

18(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

13(2)

440, 441

Email

176

442

443

Attachment to record 175

29(1)

13(2)

29(1)

178

446 - 447

Email

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

181

184

186

459

463

466

Email

Email Chain

Email

29(1)

13(2)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

467, 468

469

13(2)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

187

Email

188

189

191

471

Email Chain

29(1)

472-473

476-477

Attachment to record 188

Email Chain

29(1)

13(2)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

192

478-479

Email

13(2)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

193

194

480

481

Email Chain

Not Responsive

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

Not responsive

29(1)

195

197

482

485

Email

29(1)

47

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

200

488, 489

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

201

202

203

204

490

Email

29(1)

492

Email Chain

Email

29(1)

493

494, 495

Email

29(1)

Not Responsive

204

205

501

502

Email Chain

Email

13(2)

29(1)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

Not responsive

Not Responsive

503, 504

505, 506

206

207

208

209

Email

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

18(1)(b)

29(1)

13(2) ??

17(1)(a) ??

17(1)(b)(i)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

13(2)

507

Email Chain

508, 509

510, 511

Attachment to record 207

Email Chain

210

211

512

Email

513, 514

Email Chain

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

212

213

515

516

Email

29(1)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

517

518

Email

17(1)(a)

29(1)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

Not responsive

519

520

Email

Not responsive

214

215

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

521

Email Chain

29(1)

48

REVIEW REPORT 049-2021

217

223

550 to 556 Attachment to record 215

13(2)

727

Email

13(2)

29(1)

728

224

225

226

729 to 731 Attachment to record 223

732 to 737 Attachment to record 223

738, 739

13(2)

17(1)(b)(i)

13(2)

17(1)(b)(i)

13(2)

17(1)(b)(i)

740 to 775

13(2)

17(1)(b)(i)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(i)

29(1)

227

229

776

Email

786, 787

Email Chain

231

232

234

814 to 820 Attachment to record 229

821 Email Chain

13(2)

29(1)

13(2)

851 to 858 Attachment #2: 2015

Mgmt. Letter

235

245

859 to 860 Scanned Letter

17(1)(b)(ii)

879 to 881 Briefing Note

884 to 886 Briefing Note

16(1)

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(iii)

16(1)

247

17(1)(a)

17(1)(b)(iii)

17(1)(a)

250

252

253

891

Briefing Note

894 to 896 Handle and Advise

897 to 908 Referral

29(1)

17(1)(b)(ii)

49